Labour are still the same motley crew they were when they got booted out (for good reason). Since it makes no real difference which of the gruesome twosome happen to be in power at any given time I'd prefer they stay out of power at least until they have a proper clear out at the top.
I've still seen no indication that they are capable of recognizing where they went wrong last time so I remain unconvinced they wont go down the same route all over again.
Ed Millibands image doesnt bother me at all....everyones different if they werent it would be a boring place to live.....what does bother me is the blowing with the wind politics, whatever is populist at the time he and the Labour party seems to jump on the bandwagon.....They have no principles or believe in anything with any conviction whatsoever......Contrast this with Tony Benn for example he certainly had convictions and although i didnt agree with a lot of what he said he appeared to believe in what he was saying and could hold an argument to put his points across......
Sometimes in politics you have to take the tough unpopular decisions and i certainly cant see Ed Miliband doing that....
i do see however if he had a more Elder statesman as a Shadow Chancellor (one that wasnt involved in selling the gold or economic issues of Labours past) he might be judged a bit more favourably in economic terms.....
That might well be so. He was the best chancellor the country has ever had, providing a decade of continuous prosperity. He was very unlucky to be PM when the world's economic crash came about due, primarily, to the policies of the US neo-cons.
Oh please!
"Events, dear boy, Events" - often attributed to Harold Macmillan. He left this country totally unprepared for any issues with the international economy - even 6 months before the collapse of Northern Rock he was claiming an end to Boom and Bust - well I suppose you could argue he was right in one way - he got rid of the Boom part - pity we ended up with the biggest bust in 80 years.
Gordon Brown was lucky to get power when the British economy was in a very strong position described by the IMF in it's 1997 report as “enviable”. The OECD said
“The prospects for achieving sustained output growth and low inflation are the best in 30 years.” Hans-Olaf Henkel, the head of the German equivalent of the CBI: “Britain is now the European country best equipped to face the challenge of global competitiveness.”
Yet Gordon Brown's tenure as Chancellor presided over the 2nd worst performing stock market in the world (Japan was the worst), a decline in our relative competitiveness, an increase in the burden of Corporation Tax (despite the reduction in the headline rate). Even our pensions went from being one of the best in the world to one of the worst. He can't even claim to be totally responsible for the PSBR going down. Kenneth Clarke had predicted just this and for the first two years - Brown kept to those very same spending limits.
Ed Millibands image doesnt bother me at all....everyones different if they werent it would be a boring place to live.....what does bother me is the blowing with the wind politics, whatever is populist at the time he and the Labour party seems to jump on the bandwagon.....They have no principles or believe in anything with any conviction whatsoever......Contrast this with Tony Benn for example he certainly had convictions and although i didnt agree with a lot of what he said he appeared to believe in what he was saying and could hold an argument to put his points across......
Couldn't agree more.
I was watching Galloway ranting in Bradford the other night. I thought to myself that here's a guy who was kicked out of the labour party for holding an undesirable principle. Yet he has more principles than the entire labour party.
I have no doubt that if a focus group echoed Galloway's suggestions. Ed Milliband, our bacon sandwich eating first jewish (ignore Disraeli) prime minister. Would be calling for the UK to be an "Israel free zone"
Im sure that
"In 1993, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Harriet Harman approached Rawnsley to recruit Miliband as her policy researcher and speechwriter"
has nothing to with his Marxist father pulling a few strings.
Yes she did according to Wiki but Wiki also says he started his working life as a researcher for Channel Four not the Labour Party
In 1992, after graduating from Oxford, Miliband began his working career in the media as a researcher to co-presenter Andrew Rawnsley in the Channel 4 show A Week in Politics.[16] In 1993, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Harriet Harman approached Rawnsley to recruit Miliband as her policy researcher and speechwriter.[17] At the time, Yvette Cooper also worked for Harman as part of Labour's Shadow Treasury team.
In 1994, when Harriet Harman was moved by the newly elected Labour Leader Tony Blair to become Shadow Secretary of State for Employment, Miliband stayed on in the Shadow Treasury team and was promoted to work for Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown.[18] In 1995, with encouragement from Gordon Brown, Miliband took time out from his job to study at the London School of Economics, where he obtained a Masters in Economics.[14] After Labour's 1997 landslide victory, Miliband was appointed as a special adviser to Chancellor Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2002.[19]
Unlike Cameron who started his career as a researcher for the Conservative Party
Conservative Research Department
After graduation, Cameron worked for the Conservative Research Department between September 1988 and 1993. In 1991, Cameron was seconded to Downing Street to work on briefing John Major for his then bi-weekly session of Prime Minister's Questions. One newspaper gave Cameron the credit for "sharper ... Despatch box performances" by Major,[43] which included highlighting for Major "a dreadful piece of doublespeak" by Tony Blair (then the Labour Employment spokesman) over the effect of a national minimum wage.[44] He became head of the political section of the Conservative Research Department, and in August 1991 was tipped to follow Judith Chaplin as Political Secretary to the Prime Minister.[45]
However, Cameron lost to Jonathan Hill, who was appointed in March 1992. He was given the responsibility for briefing Major for his press conferences during the 1992 general election.[46] During the campaign, Cameron was one of the young "brat pack" of party strategists who worked between 12 and 20 hours a day, sleeping in the house of Alan Duncan in Gayfere Street, Westminster, which had been Major's campaign headquarters during his bid for the Conservative leadership.[47] Cameron headed the economic section; it was while working on this campaign that Cameron first worked closely with Steve Hilton, who was later to become Director of Strategy during his party leadership.[48] The strain of getting up at 4:45 am every day was reported to have led Cameron to decide to leave politics in favour of journalism.[49]
Ed Millibands image doesnt bother me at all....everyones different if they werent it would be a boring place to live.....what does bother me is the blowing with the wind politics, whatever is populist at the time he and the Labour party seems to jump on the bandwagon.....They have no principles or believe in anything with any conviction whatsoever......Contrast this with Tony Benn for example he certainly had convictions and although i didnt agree with a lot of what he said he appeared to believe in what he was saying and could hold an argument to put his points across......
Sometimes in politics you have to take the tough unpopular decisions and i certainly cant see Ed Miliband doing that....
i do see however if he had a more Elder statesman as a Shadow Chancellor (one that wasnt involved in selling the gold or economic issues of Labours past) he might be judged a bit more favourably in economic terms.....
I agree.
The trouble IMO is that Miliband is allowing himself to be influenced by the media and his opponents by taking criticisms too heart.
So if you criticize Miliband then isn't it hypocritical not to criticize Cameron also ? ;-)
In 1994 Cameron left politics to join Carlton Communications leaving in 2001 as Director of Corporate Affairs to stand for Parliament. He therefore has not spent his entire career in Politics.
The claim against Milliband is that he spent his entire career in Politics and while in the strictest sense that is not true the (in all probability) less than a year he spent outside is hardly going to make much of a dent in any knowledge outside of Westminster.
Miliband is pretty awful at day to day politics. He's a poor communicator, doesn't inspire much confidence as a leader and seems to lack the intellectual rigour for debates.
However, I've been thinking about this and he has actually come out well from high stakes situation - he always has a 'good war' (if I can put it like that). If you think of Murdoch/press regulation, energy prices, Syria, now Gaza, he has always come out stronger. It occurs to me that the reason he's still around is that although he's failed at the usual political theatre (budget responses etc) he hasn't taken any major hits on important issues. Well that's my impression, i'm not a fan of Ed so i'm trying to be even handed.
In 1994 Cameron left politics to join Carlton Communications leaving in 2001 as Director of Corporate Affairs to stand for Parliament. He therefore has not spent his entire career in Politics.
The claim against Milliband is that he spent his entire career in Politics and while in the strictest sense that is not true the (in all probability) less than a year he spent outside is hardly going to make much of a dent in any knowledge outside of Westminster.
Yes but the post I was replying to was remonstrating Miliband for stating his career in politics (which as you point out is not exactly correct) and ignoring that Cameron did in fact start his career working for the Conservative party.
Even a labour supporter described Miliband as " looks weird , sounds weird, is weird "
The point is does it matter if he looks weird, sounds weird, is weird ?
When people vote will they be voting for EM if they don't live in his constituency or will they be voting for the candidate who they believe will represent them as an MP ?
Looking at the latest polls it looks like "weird" is popular at the moment ;-)
Well he's going to win next year, then in the Tories Cameron will be replaced by either Big Boris or Mrs May (or perhaps Ozzy but that'll be a mistake on their behalf)
Then after this whoever is Tory leader will crush Eddie at PMQs on a weekly basis and Labour ell likely lose in 2020
My main problem with Ed is his conviction and power. The world is a pretty mixed up place at the moment with leaders coming and going left, right and centre.
How can Ed possibly give off an air of power and importance when he is simply seen as 'nice'? Putin would eat him for breakfast, Obama would treat him like a toddler and Europe would walk all over him.
How can we possibly allow a man such as him to represent us on the world stage? Alright Cameron doesn't come across as very powerful but he can hold his own on the world stage.
If his own people see him as such a wuss then British power will be deeply undermined by having Ed in charge.
My main problem with Ed is his conviction and power. The world is a pretty mixed up place at the moment with leaders coming and going left, right and centre.
How can Ed possibly give off an air of power and importance when he is simply seen as 'nice'? Putin would eat him for breakfast, Obama would treat him like a toddler and Europe would walk all over him.
How can we possibly allow a man such as him to represent us on the world stage? Alright Cameron doesn't come across as very powerful but he can hold his own on the world stage.
If his own people see him as such a wuss then British power will be deeply undermined by having Ed in charge.[/
Which a "weak, indecisive government" presumably wouldn't be able to do very successfully!
You're joking right? They'll be weak and indecisive when it comes to the big things but Mr Burnham will be coming for our junk food, our cigarettes, our breakfast cereals and all the things that really matter. ;-)
If there is any truth in this so called "Conservative plot" to undermine Ed Miliband it would suggest they are.
Name: Kill Mill.
Age: Just hatched.
Appearance: A shadowy band of ruthless villains, plotting.
Is this a Kill Bill sequel? No, this is Kill Mill, the unofficial codename – according to Rachel Sylvester of the Times – of a plot devised by a ruthless band of Conservative spin doctors.
Its aim? To make Ed Miliband look like a loser.
Ye-es. You see I'd call that entry-level plotting. Like plotting to sit in a chair, or wear a hat. I agree it's not exactly House of Cards, but some Conservatives still believe this strategy offers their best chance of victory at the general election next year. Remember Neil Kinnock?
No. Exactly. When the leader of the opposition looks like a prat people stick with the government they've got.
So what do they plan to do? Put whoopee cushions on his seat? Nothing so drastic will be needed. They've merely created a "Just Not Up To It" map to chart the insulting remarks that members of his own party have made about him, and will maximise exposure for the many little cock-ups that Miliband can be relied upon to make.
Such as? Such as just this week, when he wrote no personal message on a wreath.
But that wasn't his fault! He was handed it with seconds to spare! Only the prime minister was allowed to write a message. Doesn't matter. Once the reputation sticks it's more fun to ignore the truth. Miliband is now the one thing funnier than a buffoon: a buffoon trying not to be.
But what about that speech when he cleverly admitted to being a well-meaning clown? Might not save him. People generally prefer to be deceived, as long as it's done competently. However …
Yes? Other Tories worry that Kill Mill might be a dreadful error. David Cameron's own personal ratings are good but his weak spot is looking like a conceited upper-class bully. The kind of person who might join the Bullingdon club, for instance. Miliband may look, talk, act, sound and behave like the class loser, but Cameron can't be seen to be punching him.
Perhaps Miliband could trip and fall on to his fist? You wouldn't put it past him.
It amuses me that people think that Labour winning will bring back the Loony Left or union power. It will be the same as the last time - corporatism which leaves us up shit creek without a paddle. Labour stopped caring about the unions in the nineties.
Comments
Though you would first need to show that any ideology has been "drummed into him".
Which a "weak, indecisive government" presumably wouldn't be able to do very successfully!
I've still seen no indication that they are capable of recognizing where they went wrong last time so I remain unconvinced they wont go down the same route all over again.
I doubt it!
True, though it beats "Dave's not Gordon" ala 2010.
Sometimes in politics you have to take the tough unpopular decisions and i certainly cant see Ed Miliband doing that....
i do see however if he had a more Elder statesman as a Shadow Chancellor (one that wasnt involved in selling the gold or economic issues of Labours past) he might be judged a bit more favourably in economic terms.....
Oh please!
"Events, dear boy, Events" - often attributed to Harold Macmillan. He left this country totally unprepared for any issues with the international economy - even 6 months before the collapse of Northern Rock he was claiming an end to Boom and Bust - well I suppose you could argue he was right in one way - he got rid of the Boom part - pity we ended up with the biggest bust in 80 years.
Gordon Brown was lucky to get power when the British economy was in a very strong position described by the IMF in it's 1997 report as “enviable”. The OECD said
“The prospects for achieving sustained output growth and low inflation are the best in 30 years.” Hans-Olaf Henkel, the head of the German equivalent of the CBI: “Britain is now the European country best equipped to face the challenge of global competitiveness.”
Yet Gordon Brown's tenure as Chancellor presided over the 2nd worst performing stock market in the world (Japan was the worst), a decline in our relative competitiveness, an increase in the burden of Corporation Tax (despite the reduction in the headline rate). Even our pensions went from being one of the best in the world to one of the worst. He can't even claim to be totally responsible for the PSBR going down. Kenneth Clarke had predicted just this and for the first two years - Brown kept to those very same spending limits.
Couldn't agree more.
I was watching Galloway ranting in Bradford the other night. I thought to myself that here's a guy who was kicked out of the labour party for holding an undesirable principle. Yet he has more principles than the entire labour party.
I have no doubt that if a focus group echoed Galloway's suggestions. Ed Milliband, our bacon sandwich eating first jewish (ignore Disraeli) prime minister. Would be calling for the UK to be an "Israel free zone"
Yes she did according to Wiki but Wiki also says he started his working life as a researcher for Channel Four not the Labour Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Miliband
Unlike Cameron who started his career as a researcher for the Conservative Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron
So if you criticize Miliband then isn't it hypocritical not to criticize Cameron also ? ;-)
I agree.
The trouble IMO is that Miliband is allowing himself to be influenced by the media and his opponents by taking criticisms too heart.
In 1994 Cameron left politics to join Carlton Communications leaving in 2001 as Director of Corporate Affairs to stand for Parliament. He therefore has not spent his entire career in Politics.
The claim against Milliband is that he spent his entire career in Politics and while in the strictest sense that is not true the (in all probability) less than a year he spent outside is hardly going to make much of a dent in any knowledge outside of Westminster.
However, I've been thinking about this and he has actually come out well from high stakes situation - he always has a 'good war' (if I can put it like that). If you think of Murdoch/press regulation, energy prices, Syria, now Gaza, he has always come out stronger. It occurs to me that the reason he's still around is that although he's failed at the usual political theatre (budget responses etc) he hasn't taken any major hits on important issues. Well that's my impression, i'm not a fan of Ed so i'm trying to be even handed.
Of course they do, it's exactly the same as Labours.
Yes but the post I was replying to was remonstrating Miliband for stating his career in politics (which as you point out is not exactly correct) and ignoring that Cameron did in fact start his career working for the Conservative party.
That supporter sounds a bit weird himself!
The point is does it matter if he looks weird, sounds weird, is weird ?
When people vote will they be voting for EM if they don't live in his constituency or will they be voting for the candidate who they believe will represent them as an MP ?
Looking at the latest polls it looks like "weird" is popular at the moment ;-)
Then after this whoever is Tory leader will crush Eddie at PMQs on a weekly basis and Labour ell likely lose in 2020
How can Ed possibly give off an air of power and importance when he is simply seen as 'nice'? Putin would eat him for breakfast, Obama would treat him like a toddler and Europe would walk all over him.
How can we possibly allow a man such as him to represent us on the world stage? Alright Cameron doesn't come across as very powerful but he can hold his own on the world stage.
If his own people see him as such a wuss then British power will be deeply undermined by having Ed in charge.
You're joking right? They'll be weak and indecisive when it comes to the big things but Mr Burnham will be coming for our junk food, our cigarettes, our breakfast cereals and all the things that really matter. ;-)
If there is any truth in this so called "Conservative plot" to undermine Ed Miliband it would suggest they are.